Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!oliveb!veritas!amdcad!amdcad!military
From: camelsho@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Raouls Used Camlshop)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Base closings and wild weasels
Message-ID: <1991Apr18.032551.21966@amd.com>
Date: 17 Apr 91 14:33:49 GMT
References: <1991Apr16.041218.27410@amd.com>
Sender: military@amd.com
Organization: Kansas State University
Lines: 24
Approved: military@amd.com


From: camelsho@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Raouls Used Camlshop)


pms2@jaguar.uofs.edu writes:
>One other bit of news - the 4/8 issue of _AW&ST_ reports that the USAF
>will not phase out the F-4G Wild Weasals yet.  What strikes me as odd is that
>they would want to use an F-16 platform as a successor.  Why not the F-15??  Do
>they have something against two engines in a fighter??? (:-) )

When the F15 and F16 were first authorized, wasn't there some debate
about "Why both planes?".   If I recall correctly, the response was that
the F16 was a cheaper/better high agility/air superiority plane, while
the F15 was the better all around/add-it-on-it'l-fit plane.

If this is truely the case, then F16's would be better for the mission
of Wild Weasel due to its manuverability. (Provided the modifications
do not seriously warp its performance.)

Any comments?

--
james seymour
camelsho@matt.ksu.ksu.edu